"The police had to be "dragged kicking and screaming" before they charged Zimmerman, but eventually they did."

Yeah! If I was that detective and I didn't feel like I had PC, you'd have to fire me because I'd be violating someone's civil rights if I behaved in any other way.... but that's not what happened in this particular case. It's not uncommon for the police to defer a case to the prosecutor if they don't feel that they have PC at the time of the encounter. I've explained the reasons above but sometimes you need more time to develop a case to establish PC and that's normally for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the police work. They did what happens a million times a day in the U.S., they invested more time into the investigation and continued to analyze the merits of the case until they had the magic 51%.

I've seen other cases just like this where charges were never filed. If this was two white people or two black people then I seriously doubt charges would have ever been filed. Deadly force against MMA fighters, boxers, martial artists, et al is easily justified as self defense. Add that Zimmerman possessed a gun and could easily articulate that he felt he was going to lose it to Traavon... that's a loser case from the get-go.

"Given that one juror that talked to Anderson Cooper, I don't think they would have ever found him guilty. And same thing with a lot of BPL people, they (you) just don't see anything wrong with Zimmerman getting out of vehicle rather than letting the police deal with it."

Jerry, please don't put words in my mouth. My position is that a person who lacks people skills shouldn't try to approach suspicious people nor should they try to pretend that they are the cherub of justice. The bottom line is that by exiting his car and approaching Traavon, regardless of his poor judgment, is not illegal.

He was not on trial for his judgment. He was on trial for murder and/or manslaughter. Am I defending Zimmeran? Absolutely not! He's a buffoon and this whole event should have never happened.

It should be mentioned that Zimmerman contends he never followed Martin in the sense of trying to apprehend him, and that he never approached Martin either. His account is that he left his car to determine which direction Martin had fled and to get an address for the dispatcher. The interview tapes are readily available, you can hear it in his own words.

Wow. A lot of people are still arguing stuff that was presented in the media and since debunked. Someone reported about a "racist" mySpace page, then that got re-reported, and people assumed there was some sort of anti-black rant on it, etc...

On the MySpace page that he hadn't used in years Zimmerman made a comment about Mexicans acting like thugs. Which is interesting, since he's Hispanic. Nothing about blacks. (But then, I make fun of rednecks, don't I?) That's about it.

The uproar about his MySpace account was righteous indignation from liberals that his defense had the GALL to use Trayvon's social media posts as evidence, so they tried to present this as hypocritical. Specifically, they brought up Zimmerman's posts about his legal encounter in 2005, in which he comes off as a jackass. Which is a valid point, but not racist. Here's the best direct quotes I can find, from that bastion of conservative thought The Huffington Post:

Yes, clearly Zimmerman is a jackass. I don't think that anyone has yet disputed that. But this doesn't sound like hatred of blacks to me. It certainly does not overcome reasonable doubt.

Also, where did the "police screwed up the investigation" meme get started? They detained and sweated Zimmerman for five or six hours, took his clothes and possessions as evidence, took crime scene photos and had the CSI's go over things, and spent (at least) five days finding and interviewing witnesses. They even checked the DNA on his gun even though he never denied shooting Martin. That's pretty thorough. The only thing that can realistically be criticized is that it took them a while to impound Zimmerman's car, because they initially didn't realize that Zimmerman had arrived by vehicle. Which is moot, because no relevant evidence was ever recovered from the car. So, seriously- tell me how they "screwed up" the investigation.

Apparently the only thing that people think was botched was that they didn't arrest Zimmerman. That's not a very good argument- "I think he should have been arrested, so the police must have botched something!" The truth is- they knew this case was a loser from the beginning. They knew they'd never get a conviction. So they didn't arrest him. The police and the district attorney do have that discretion, not to waste taxpayer money chasing loser cases. When the police were later pressured into arresting Zimmerman the lead detective damned near resigned because he thought it was a travesty, since there was no evidence of a crime- in fact he asked to be reassigned to patrol duty. That's a heck of a statement. And no less than Alan Dershowitz (Alan Dershowitz, for the love of God, that well-known right-wing mouthpiece!) said that the decision to arrest Zimmerman was ridiculous and totally due to caving to popular pressure because Prosecutor Corey was up for re-election.

Likewise, Jennifer, the prosecution didn't "blow it." You're just saying that because YOU don't like the verdict. They just had a losing case.

And I also think that a lot of people misinterpret (or WANT to misinterpret) what Obama said about how "his son would look like Trayvon." Granted, the more foam-at-the-mouth Obama haters will willfully misinterpret ANYTHING that man says, but...

He was just making a point of how close to home the case hits for him. I'm pretty sure that he wasn't making any judgement calls about the case against Zimmerman. Or if he was, I'm pretty sure it was early and he was suckered by the lies the media manufactured about Zimmerman being a racist just like the rest of us. But granted, I haven't followed Obama's commentary very closely. (In fact I pretty much ignored this case until the verdict, then read up on it- which may be why I'm not so swayed by all the initial media ridiculousness.) So, did he ever say anything about the case?

EDIT--

Oh, and the burglar who is pleading "stand your ground" for shooting the homeowner he was robbing is going to lose that case. The gist of "stand your ground" laws (which are common in Europe, to the frustration of American liberals- there is a neat article in Slate about it) is that you don't have a duty to retreat when attacked in a place that you have a legal right to be. Instead, you may defend yourself. The European argument is that you should not have to yield a public space to thugs and criminals. You have a right to be there.

The burglar did not have a legal right to be in the house he was robbing. His lawyer is just being cute, and probably has an agenda and is trying to make the law look bad. In fact, I'm pretty sure that legally if you kill someone as a direct result of the commission of a crime that that's murder by definition. You CANNOT claim self-defense.

And, despite what the media says, you also cannot start a barfight then shoot the other guy and claim self-defense. Nor can you shoot a protester who blocks you from walking down the sidewalk. The media likes to conveniently leave out all reference to the doctrine of proportionality...

"The media are reporting that a juror says Zimmerman is guilty of murder. That’s not true."
on 07/27/2013 17:50:59 MDT

"ABC News hasn’t posted a full unedited video or transcript of the interview. The video that has been broadcast—on World News Tonight, Nightline, and Good Morning America—has been cut and spliced in different ways, often so artfully that the transitions appear continuous. So beware what you’re seeing. But the video that’s available already shows, on closer inspection, that Maddy has been manipulated and misrepresented.

1. The phrase “got away with murder” was put in her mouth.2. She stands by the verdict3. She thinks the case should never have gone to trial.7. To the extent she feels racial or ethnic pressure, it’s against Zimmerman. "

Re: "The media are reporting that a juror says Zimmerman is guilty of murder. That’s not true."
on 07/27/2013 20:09:08 MDT

I went back and listened to ABC video. I don't agree with Slate premis that the video misrepresented anything. Slate just wants to come out with something sensational to get more readers.

It was obviously cut and spliced - they included other people like Trevon's parents, the Anderson Cooper juror, Obama,...

It was obvious the didn't include the whole interview. TV programs have limited time and always edit. There were lots of obvious cuts.

The juror said "George Zimmerman got away with murder (pause) but you can't get away from god". There was no question mark in her voice. And the fact that she said "but you can't get away from god" - the "but" only makes logical sense after saying he got away with murder. She also said that initially she voted guilty of 2nd degree murder.

The ABC interview said pretty clearly the juror stood by the verdict. The defense lawyer talked about that also.

They didn't include her saying she thought it shouldn't go to trial, but there's only so much time, not a conspiracy. They did include her saying she thought she was forcefully included in Trevon's death which comes pretty close to that, since she said she didn't regret the verdict.

Robins asked her if it was about race. She responded "it's a question to be asked". She said people have followed her before. I think she left the question open, no definite answer.

I think the biggest question is the juror said she couldn't vote guilty because they didn't prove Z intentionally kill Trevon. But you don't need that for manslaughter. Either the juror didn't understand their instructions or they did a poor job of describing what manslaughter is.

"I want the gun toters to be well trained, like the police, so innocent kids aren't killed"

Like this?"Narcotics officers had become suspicious of Mr. Graham as he walked through the Wakefield section of the Bronx with two friends. Officer Haste, 31, pursued the teenager, forcing his way into the apartment where Mr. Graham lived with his grandmother. The officer confronted him in the bathroom and shot him, after he mistakenly interpreted a gesture as Mr. Graham reaching for a gun, according to the officer’s account to the grand jury."

I can indict a ham sandwich. All you have to do is prove to the Grand Jury is probable cause, not beyond a reasonable doubt. No bills are unbelievably rare but I can't speak for the State of NY so things may be different over there.

If they couldn't indict, I'm inclined to believe that there's more to this story that what was published. NY Times won't let me read it so all I have to go with is the provided quote.

"at least with the police they have to do a lot of training to minimize the chance of mis-usewith private citizens with little training, there has to be a much larger chance of mis-use"

"training"

Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

---

"The city of Seattle will pay $1.75 million to settle a federal civil-rights lawsuit filed by the father of a mentally ill man who suffered severe brain damage when he was held down, choking on blood and vomit, after being handcuffed and gagged by Seattle police, according to the man’s lawyers.

The Seattle City Attorney’s Office confirmed the settlement this afternoon.

The settlement may be among the largest excessive-force settlements ever paid by the city. The city paid $1.5 million to settle with the family of John T. Williams, who was fatally shot by a police officer in August 2010."

"The recent settlement arose from the May 2010 arrest of Brian Scott Torgerson, a schizophrenic man who was having a mental-health crisis when his parents called police in hopes of getting help for him. Officers who responded to his Capitol Hill apartment decided to arrest Torgerson on an outstanding misdemeanor warrant.

According to the lawsuit, the first officers on the scene said Torgerson was cooperative and had stepped into the hallway to talk when they grabbed him and a struggle ensued.

Over the next several minutes, more than a dozen officers arrived. Torgerson, who was 45 at the time, was punched and elbowed in the face, tased at least twice and bound hand and foot and fitted with a so-called “spitsock” — a fine-mesh hood — placed over his head to prevent him from getting bodily fluids on the officers.

At least two officers, and at one point several others, forcefully held him face-down on the floor as the spitsock clogged with blood and vomit, according to the lawsuit.

"YAKIMA - A jury today convicted Spokane Police Officer Karl F. Thompson Jr. of needlessly beating Otto Zehm and then lying about it to cover up his actions.

The verdict comes five years and seven months since Zehm’s life ended and growing questions of police accountability began."

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/nov/02/zehm-decision/

---

"A couple whose Newfoundland, Rosie, was shot and killed by Des Moines police in November 2010 will be awarded at least $51,000 in a settlement reached late last month.--The officers had responded to a report of a loose dog in the Wrights’ Des Moines neighborhood, phoned in by a neighbor who was concerned that Rosie might get hurt." "Over the course of about an hour, the officers twice used a Taser on Rosie, chased her for blocks and ultimately shot the dog four times with an assault rifle in a stranger’s backyard.--The audio recording indicates the officers were talking about shooting Rosie within 10 minutes of arriving at the scene.The animal eventually ran into the backyard of a home about four blocks away.After the dog was shot once, one of the officers is heard shouting “Nice!”